Bernard Hopkins legacy

What he said !:good

 

Where you place him is opinion bro...[No Argument here]
but his accomplishent's have garnered him that (1-15) spot.

 

great post Cobra

 

Comments like this are ridiculous. Boring??? Yeah maybe a bit lately as he is 43 FREAKING years old, but did you watch his fights earlier in his career. Johnson, Vanderpool, Echols, Lipsey, etc....

The beatdown of Trinidad was a great fight. His fight with Joppy was grewat to as he absolutely destroyed him.

What do people expect out of a 40yr old fighter? Of course he won't be exciting at that age. Just to be competitive at 40 is something unheard of, let alone being a top-5 p4p fighter like he is. Not to mention that all of his recent losses have been very controversial and could have gone his way just as easily all while he was 40+ yrs old.


Name another guy at 40+ years that would have beat Winky Wright and Antonio Tarver, lose very close controversial decisions to a prime Calzaghe and Taylor as well...

Hopkins is a legend with a great style.

 

He he ranks above Monzon, Greb or Robinson then? I don't think so.

I've said it before, but Hopkins never beat one great fighter in his prime weight. You can't refute that fact. Which fighter he beat ranks highest at the weightclass Hopkins beat them at, and where does said fight rank all-time? I think it's Tarver, who makes it into the top 30 at light heavyweight.

Trinidad isn't top 30 at middleweight. De La Hoya certaily isn't. Wright isn't at light heavyweight and so on.

 

The only middleweights that can be called greater than him are Monzon, Hagler, Greb, Robinson, and Stanley Ketchel. That's 5, at most. Dick Tiger, Jake LaMotta, Charlie Burley, Marcel Cerdan, Emile Griffith, all have outstanding resumes at 160lbs, but Hopkins should be above them.

 

great credit must be given for his performance in his younger years. the tito win was sheer masterclass but teh oscar win was not that spectacular as oscar is no middlweight

 

He's lower top 10 probably. Greb, Monzon, Robinson and Hagler are dead certs to rank over him.

Then you've got some pretty tough competition like Ketchel, Tiger, Fullmer, Griffith, Walker etc. It's a hugely deep division historically, there could be a case made he struggles to make it.

 

I'm not as well versed in boxing history as some people on this board, but how many top30 middleweights of all time did Hagler and Monzon beat, and who were they?

IMO its very hard for anyone to achieve top30 atg middleweight status while Hopkins is beating everyone in division and holding all the belts.

 

U can't deny the man legacy, whether u like him or not :good

 

Joe Louis only beat one great fighter who was his weight ("Jersey" Joe Walcott), and the only other truly great fighter he beat was Billy Conn, whom he outweighed by about 30lbs. Hopkins never beating a great fighter when they were at their best weight is a detracting detail, but he dominated every single top middleweight of his day, including two great fighters, for 10 years.

It was impressive what B-Hop was able to do in his 40's, but what makes it so special is that the only other fighters with real success in their 40's are Archie Moore, George Foreman, and Bob Fitzsimmons, 3 of the greatest punchers in boxing history. B-Hop had solid power, but nothing really special. He beat Tarver, Wright, and Eastman, and lost very close decisions to Taylor and Calzaghe entirely based on his craft, skills, experience, and nearly unmatched ring intelligence.

There's no need to have the kind of hate some people appear to have towards an undeniable legend.

 

Yeah anyone who doubts Hopkins has HOF credentials should really stop watching boxing.

 

Monzon, in my mind is the greatest 160lbs fighter ever. Greb and Robinson rank higher than him P4P because of what each did outside of 160lbs plus what they did there, but I don't think either one should be above Hopkins for simply what they did at 160 (not that I would really argue with them being so). I can't see any great middleweight clearly beating a prime Hopkins, who was as complete a fighter as you can be. Speed, power, footwork, accuracy, workrate, chin, defense, timing, etc. And Hagler never beat a top 30 middleweight (though at 160 his opponents were generally better than B-Hop's). Monzon did beat Griffith and Benvenuti twice, who both rank as top 15 or top 20 middleweights. Rodrigo Valdez should probably be top 20 or 25 as well.

B-Hop, in my opinion, can range from about #7 to #2, depending on what your criteria for ranking fighters is. Because the only guys who can match his dominance as a champion are Louis and Ricardo Lopez. Round-by-round and fight-by-fight B-Hop was more dominant than Louis, and he defeated better challengers than Lopez, so you could argue he had the greatest reign of any champion ever. Just making a point.

 

yeah they are but they werent just wins they were beatdowns and i really admired how he has been able to analyse and breakdown every single opponent he faced in recent memory so that he knew the gameplan and how to exploit there weaknesses and prevent them from fighting to their strengths even against calzaghe you could see he knew the best way of fighting him and how to prevent calzaghe boxing his fight...hopkins is also a master ring general